014-NLR-NLR-V-24-NALLA-CARUPPEN-CHETTY-v.-ASANA.pdf
( 55 )
Present: De Sampayo J
NALL A CARUPPEN CHETTY i». ASANA.
35—C. R. Colombo, 80,619.
Civil Procedure Code, s. 414—Answer professing Iq bring money intoCourt—Money not brought—Answer filed—Application to dismissaction.
When un answer professes to bring money into Court, but themoney is, in fact, not brought into Court, the answer shad not hereceived. But where the answer was not rejected, but wasreceived and hied as the defence, it is too late thereafter to applysection 414.
r'jp HE facts appear from the judgment.
H. V. Pererat for the appellant.
Ttsseveresinghe, for the respondent.
May 12, 1922. Be Sampayo J.—
The defendant appeals from an order entering judgment for theplaintiff, on the ground that the defendant professed to bring acertain amount into Court and did not do so. The action is upon apromissory note made by the first defendant in favour of the seconddefendant, and endorsed by the second defendant to the plaintiff.The plaintiff, giving credit for a certain amount, claims Rs. 201.25.The first defendant, among other things, pleaded that only Rs. 25was due to the plaintiff, and he proceeded to state, “ and thisdefendant is prepared to bring this amount to the plaintiff. ’ ’ Thispleading was filed by a proctor. What he meant by the words justquoted it is difficult to understand. But in favour of the defendantI would understand it in a sense most favourable to him, that is tosay, the defendant probably meant that he was prepared to paythe amount to the plaintiff.. The use of this language, however,misled the Court into applying section 414 to the case. Even asregards that section it should be observed that what it provides isthat, when an answer professes to bring money into Court, but themoney is, in fact, not brought into Court, the* answer shall not bereceived. But in this particular case the answer was not rejected.It was received and filed as the defence of the defendant. I think,therefore, that it is too late now to apply section 414. The fact ofthe matter is that the Court should have ignored this objectiontaken on behalf of the plaintiff, and have heard the case on evidence.
1922.
( 56 )
i»22. Jti is a simple question as to whether the answer disclosed anyDa Saupayo defence, or, if it did, what is the amount payable by the defendantto the plaintiff? These questions might have been disposed of inNaUa a very short time. The result of the objection and its being sustainedCmruppen by the Court is that the whole time hitherto taken has been wasted.jSana The dismissal is set aside, and the case sent back to be proceededwith. I will not make any order as to costs.
Set aside.